Real Stan Lee, but fake Kirby? 0

[Prince Namor]

On 5/25/2022 at 6:43 PM, shadroch said:

What was KIrbys house on the Pacific worth?  A quick google search indicates he left an estate  of between ten and twenty million dollars when he died in 1994 so if anyone wants to claim he wasn't a millionaire in 1990/91, I think it is on them to provide proof. 

Millionaire or not, legend or not, accepting thousands of dollars to sign books and not signing them sucks. I can't believe anyone would try to defend it. 

Was it worth 10 million or $20 million? That’s a pretty big jump. 
 

How much was it worth in 1970-71 when he bought it?  

[shadroch]

On 5/30/2022 at 3:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Was it worth 10 million or $20 million? That’s a pretty big jump. 
 

How much was it worth in 1970-71 when he bought it?  

I don't know but it doesn't really matter.  Was it worth a million when he was signing the books would be the question.

[Prince Namor]

There was speculation for years that Stan had handlers signing for him. Never much used that. All speculation. 
 

Reisman brings it up in his book. Still never really used it - still speculation in my eyes. 
 

The Kirby rumors have been around longer so they’ve gained traction. Still speculation to me.  
 

We DO know for a fact that Roy Thomas was ghost writing the Spider-man Newspaper strip for 20 years, even though it was still attributed to Stan as the writer until his death. THAT is fraud. 
 

Why’d they stop attributing the writing after he died I wonder? Why not just keep saying he wrote it even after he  passed away. His fans would still believe it. 

[shadroch]

On 5/30/2022 at 3:24 PM, shadroch said:

I don't know but it doesn't really matter.  Was it worth a million when he was signing the books would be the question.

I don't know LA but his Thousand Oaks neighborhood  is said to be in the top two or three places to live in California.  I do know California real estate prices are always crazy.

[shadroch]

On 5/30/2022 at 3:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

There was speculation for years that Stan had handlers signing for him. Never much used that. All speculation. 
 

Reisman brings it up in his book. Still never really used it - still speculation in my eyes. 
 

The Kirby rumors have been around longer so they’ve gained traction. Still speculation to me.  
 

We DO know for a fact that Roy Thomas was ghost writing the Spider-man Newspaper strip for 20 years, even though it was still attributed to Stan as the writer until his death. THAT is fraud. 
 

Why’d they stop attributing the writing after he died I wonder? Why not just keep saying he wrote it even after he  passed away. His fans would still believe it. 

Ghost writing is not fraud.  Not even close.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

There was speculation for years that Stan had handlers signing for him. Never much used that. All speculation. 
 

Reisman brings it up in his book. Still never really used it - still speculation in my eyes. 
 

The Kirby rumors have been around longer so they’ve gained traction. Still speculation to me.  
 

We DO know for a fact that Roy Thomas was ghost writing the Spider-man Newspaper strip for 20 years, even though it was still attributed to Stan as the writer until his death. THAT is fraud. 
 

Why’d they stop attributing the writing after he died I wonder? Why not just keep saying he wrote it even after he  passed away. His fans would still believe it. 

It's not speculation when Keya Morgan is videotaped "directing" Stan's hand-

Jim Shooter also ghost wrote the Spider-Man strip. The upcoming issue of BACK ISSUE states quite publicly (if you'd like to confirm for yourself) that Jim Salicrup was ghost writing it before Roy got it- not speculation. Someone that works for POW! told me and someone from ReedPop that Danny Fingeroth wrote any "special occasion" Marvel stories under Stan's name. 

Ed Piskor stated publicly on Cartoonist Kayfabe that Stan's reps would have all of his introductions and essays ghost written and then they would approve it if it sounded like Stan enough. It's possible Piskor made that up but it didn't sound like it and it aligns with everything else I've just reiterated above.

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:31 PM, shadroch said:

Ghost writing is not fraud.  Not even close.

Items Stan Lee has written sell for more than what they would if just Roy Thomas wrote them. 
 

They kept Stan’s name on it as a writer to make more money  

That is unethical and it is fraud. 

 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:34 PM, Prince Namor said:

Items Stan Lee has written sell for more than what they would if just Roy Thomas wrote them. 
 

They kept Stan’s name on it as a writer to make more money  

That is unethical and it is fraud. 

 

It's also fraud if someone buys a special anniversary issue because Stan is advertised as writing a special 10 page story in the back or something. It's false advertising so how would it not be fraud?

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:36 PM, wisbyron said:

It's also fraud if someone buys a special anniversary issue because Stan is advertised as writing a special 10 page story in the back or something. It's false advertising so how would it not be fraud?

Absolutely. 
Otherwise, what’s to stop Marvel from doing it endlessly?

”We found this story from before Stan died! It’s the only actual -script he ever wrote! It was in the crack of Jim Shooter’s old desk, stored away in a warehouse in Jersey for 40 years! And we’re writing a NEW comic from it - with 18 variant covers - buy them all True Believer! Stan loves you from beyond the grave!”

[Bird]

I don't understand the Stan vs Jack mentality. They are both keys to the hobby and both have faults. Coming from OA I know more about Jack than Stan. I know to be wary of the late commissions that were sold as Kirby's through Sotheby's though. I wouldn't buy a Stan sig nor a Jack sig unless strong evidence it was from back in the day (so Jack on first page only for me).

anyway, my 2 cents

 

somewhere on the OA forums someone is selling a Kirby Surfer that is generally assumed to be 25-50% by someone else, and that is the seller's % IIRC

It is a shame they both had to become hucksters to some extent at the end there. It tarnishes both of their legacies in my opinion. You can't take away what they did of course but you cannot ignore the ugliness at the end unfortunately either.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Bird

[Larryw7]

If those websites have any real info, they're probably reporting the Kirby family's settlement with Marvel long after he passed away. Kirby was broke, it was never a secret.

[lordbyroncomics]

The mistake is in simplifying it into a "Stan vs Jack mentality"- this is one of the common things people do to avoid serious discussion about the flaws within the Marvel Method kickback scheme by suggesting at the forefront that one is diminished somehow or that pointing out things somehow means you are completely saying one is perfect and one is not or that Stan deserves no credit and so forth. This is flawed and misleading. Stan deserves lots of credit. But it's the credit that he took that he *didn't* deserve that is problematic. 

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:45 PM, Bird said:

I don't understand the Stan vs Jack mentality.

It began when Jack begin to assert his contribution to the creation of the Marvel Universe, something very apparent in his long term history. 
 

The Stan camp and his cult, needing to protect that legacy responded angrily. 
 

And it’s been like that ever since. 

I look at it like this. Without Stan, the Marvel Universe would’ve never been what it became. Without Jack it would’ve never existed at all. 

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 3:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

It began when Jack begin to assert his contribution to the creation of the Marvel Universe, something very apparent in his long term history. 
 

The Stan camp and his cult, needing to protect that legacy responded angrily. 
 

And it’s been like that ever since. 

I look at it like this. Without Stan, the Marvel Universe would’ve never been what it became. Without Jack it would’ve never existed at all. 

sure it would.  Marvel's most successful book for example had nothing to do with Kirby.

[Bird]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

It began when Jack begin to assert his contribution to the creation of the Marvel Universe, something very apparent in his long term history. 

sorry, I know the whys but not why fans feel the need to take one side over the other when none of us know the real story

shades of grey and fans staking out black and white positions seems so odd

I did hero worship for many years (Rush!!!) but after age 30 or so I expect most of us to see that for what it is.

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:48 PM, wisbyron said:

The mistake is in simplifying it into a "Stan vs Jack mentality"- this is one of the common things people do to avoid serious discussion about the flaws within the Marvel Method kickback scheme by suggesting at the forefront that one is diminished somehow or that pointing out things somehow means you are completely saying one is perfect and one is not or that Stan deserves no credit and so forth. This is flawed and misleading. Stan deserves lots of credit. But it's the credit that he took that he *didn't* deserve that is problematic. 

Well said. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

It began when Jack begin to assert his contribution to the creation of the Marvel Universe, something very apparent in his long term history. 
 

The Stan camp and his cult, needing to protect that legacy responded angrily. 
 

And it’s been like that ever since. 

I look at it like this. Without Stan, the Marvel Universe would’ve never been what it became. Without Jack it would’ve never existed at all. 

You can't challenge these middle aged men who desperately need the myth. They pathologically can't take it, they don't do research and they are either contrary or literally exceedingly stupid.

 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:53 PM, Bird said:

sorry, I know the whys but not why fans feel the need to take one side over the other when none of us know the real story

shades of grey and fans staking out black and white positions seems so odd

I did hero worship for many years (Rush!!!) but after age 30 or so I expect most of us to see that for what it is.

There is no taking one side or the other. Anyone who says Stan didn't contribute is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. Anyone who says Jack didn't contribute is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

To put it simply; it is about Stan taking credit he didn't earn and it is about intricate and complex legality that began when Chemical bought Marvel from Martin Goodman. It continues with every other owner of Marvel up to Disney.

Think of it like this: why would Stan Lee accept a flat $1 million a year salary and a lifetime guarantee of being employed if he created everything? Stan is a figurehead because of the complexities of work-for-hire and a freelancer (Kirby) being the main generator of ideas and concepts at Marvel. It became necessary for Stan to start this "I created" etc. narrative- because the people above him needed it. I wonder if the real frantic ones ever read Stan's views on creator rights in 1971 where he said:  

"I would say that the comic book market is the worst market that there is on the face of the earth for creative talent, and the reasons are numberless and legion. I have had many talented people ask me how to get into the comic book business. If they were talented enough, the first answer I would give them is, why would you want to get into the comic book business? Because even if you succeed, even if you reach what might be considered the pinnacle of success in comics, you will be less successful, less secure, and less effective than if you are just an average practitioner of your art in television, radio, movies, or what have you. It is a business in which the creator, as was mentioned before, owns nothing of his creation. The publisher owns it… … Unfortunately, in the comic field, the artist, the writer, and the editor, if you will, are the most helpless people in the world.

 

- Roughly one year later when Marvel was bought and Stan was made into Manager/Publisher/Figurehead, he changed his tone and never said such things again.

 

So again, when you simplify it into "STAN IS BAD, JACK IS GOOD" you are putting in terms of little kids arguing about Superman racing The Flash. This is a complex matter with many layers of history, all researched, all documented. Stan's legion of easily impossible stories to charm college reporters and such (Sgt. Fury was a "bet" with his Publisher, Spider-Man was "snuck into" the last issue of AF, etc.)- this stuff is dangerous because people who don't research believe that it happened. And often when that occurs? PROPER CREDIT IS STOLEN. That's wrong. There's something called setting the record straight. I know that's not as fun for the Merry Marching Society, but it's important.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:51 PM, kav said:

sure it would.  Marvel's most successful book for example had nothing to do with Kirby.

Which book is that, dare I ask?

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:51 PM, kav said:

sure it would.  Marvel's most successful book for example had nothing to do with Kirby.

Sure it did. If Kirby hadn’t done ‘The Fly’ for Archie, then Ditko wouldn’t have recognized the idea and changed Spidey to what it became. 
 

Stan’s story about Kirby drawing too heroic is questionable - when was THAT a bad thing? - Ditko says he pointed out that Kirby’s idea resembled the FLY and boom - Ditko did his thing. 
 

Without Kirby pushing superheroes wherever he went, Ditko wouldn’t have noticed and Stan might’ve had Spidey and his magic ring.